RE GERSANIBA IRHINE LEBAQUIN AND ANOTHER

CACV 269/2023, [2026] HKCA 265

On appeal from [2023] HKCFI 2137

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 269 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 374 OF 2019)

--------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 11 June 2024, this court (Barma JA and Lisa Wong J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 18 August 2023 refusing leave to the applicants to apply for judicial review. The applicants had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing their appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting their non‑refoulement claims.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicants’ appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.  

3.  The applicants subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 2 July 2024, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the 1^st applicant (for herself and on behalf of the 2^nd applicant) stated that the court had ignored the alleged errors committed by the Board and that her life would be in danger upon refoulement.

4.  In her written submissions lodged on 12 July 2024 (for herself and on behalf of the 2^nd applicant), the 1^st applicant repeated the supposed errors of the Board, and the dangers she (and the 2^nd applicant) allegedly faced should she (and the 2^nd applicant) be refouled.

5.  Having considered the applicants’ Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicants’ application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.  The matters stated by the applicants do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicants have failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters they have raised.

7.  The Notice of Motion fails to identify any supposed error in our judgment and the matters stated therein raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 2 July 2024 is dismissed.